Perspectives: Self-righteousness won’t solve our immigration woes

In this June 17, 2018, file photo, Stefanie Herweck stands with other protesters in front of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Rio Grande Valley Sector's Centralized Processing Center in McAllen, Texas | Photo by Joel Martinez/The Monitor via the Associated Press, St. George News

OPINION — A lot of back and forth on immigration has dominated both mass media and social media this past week. But the emotional cries of “Think of the children” and “We must protect our borders” are merely feeding an ongoing power struggle for dominion over one another.

Concern for people who have actually suffered an injustice is a secondary consideration.

Commitment to one’s principles requires a degree of moral consistency. The latest wave of selective outrage is clearly lacking in this respect.

Those crying out on behalf of families being separated for crossing the border without official permission have been curiously quiet about the plight of other families being separated as a result of government policy.

U.S. drone strikes in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen and Syria continue to separate families – often literally – via high explosives, in attacks that have claimed thousands of innocent lives since 2001. The numbers have been well documented in reports like The Drone Papers.

Simply referring to those killed and maimed as “militants” seeks to obscure the innocent lives lost. Sure, some of those taken out in these extra-judicial killings may have been labeled enemies of the state.

What about the innocent bystanders who also paid with their lives for simply being in the vicinity of the accused? Why no media grandstanding or tears for these families?

Politically driven individuals and organizations have long favored using the violence of the state to impose their desires upon others. Now the left’s preference for statism is wavering as the state continues to enforce ill-conceived immigration policies, albeit under a Republican president.

If the policies being enforced are immoral under this president, then they were immoral under the last two Democratic administrations as well. Why not attack the misuse of government power rather than your political rivals?

Omissions like this make the current partisan caterwauling over immigration look more like a proxy war for or against a particular politician than a reasoned plea from the moral high ground.

Like the sleazy politician who insists “You can trust me,” individuals who are constantly trying to prove to us that their hearts are in the right place should also raise a few red flags.

Those chanting slogans on the law and order side also appear to be guilty of virtue signaling for the sake of dominance as well.

Their stance regarding America’s southern border has more to do with fear than respect for the law or a desire for justice.

Remember that there is nowhere in the U.S. Constitution where the federal government is given stated authority over immigration. It does have legitimate authority to oversee naturalization – the process of becoming a citizen – but the two terms are not interchangeable.

Under the 10th Amendment, the powers not expressly delegated to the federal government or enumerated in the Constitution are reserved to the states and the people, respectively.

When government usurps power that is not rightly within its legitimate scope, that is an illegal act. Consider this irony the next time you’re tempted to reduce people to mere objects by referring to them as “illegals.”

Secondly, crossing an invisible line separating America’s reality from Mexico’s reality without official permission is not in and of itself an evil act. It has only been illegal to do so since 1924, but not everything that is illegal is necessarily morally improper.

Characterizing all individuals who do this as criminal actors is another exercise in deception.

There may be individuals with criminal intent who seek to enter this country. The only reliable measure of authentic wrongdoing is found in whether they have caused measurable harm to another person or his property.

There are also peaceful individuals with valid motivation to seek greater opportunity here. Their unwillingness to submit to the current costly and drawn out bureaucratic process is not unreasonable given how cumbersome this task has become.

Fear-based fantasies about cartel hitmen and terrorist dirty bombs exploding in our cities are the prime driver of calls for more government in order to make the border an impenetrable no-mans-land. This stance blatantly ignores the role that unwise government policies have played in both enriching drug cartels and provoking acts of terrorism.

Those who sincerely are trying to prevent splitting up families by government force or to protect us from potential harm aren’t wrong for wanting to do so.

However, neither side can claim the moral high ground when it’s clear their ultimate goal is to politically dominate their opponents. Their moral inconsistency is clear.

If we genuinely seek to make a stand for humanity, our thoughtful individual actions will demonstrate this desire more eloquently than any amount of fanatical political posturing. Focus on cultivating your own wisdom, and your good intentions will accomplish a lot more than feeding the never-ending struggle for power.

Bryan Hyde is an opinion columnist specializing in current events and liberty viewed through what he calls the lens of common sense. The opinions stated in this article are his own and may not be representative of St. George News.

Free News Delivery by Email

Would you like to have the day's news stories delivered right to your inbox every evening? Enter your email below to start!

About the Author

Bryan Hyde is a husband, father, teacher, writer, speaker of truth, and a disciple of liberty. He has been a steady voice of reason with a radio career that spans more than 30 years and is the host of the daily "Loving Liberty with Bryan Hyde" broadcast. He also co-hosts the "Society and the State" podcast. As a commentator for Who's Next, he shares the stories of citizens throughout America who are on the receiving end of official injustice.
The opinions stated in this article are Hyde's own and may not be representative of St. George News.

62 Comments

Sorry Bryan, but any sovereign nation has the right to protect its own borders and regulate who comes in and out of them. In fact it has the responsibility to its own citizens to do so. Anyone crossing the border in the desert isn’t a visitor and isn’t seeking asylum, they’re trying to sneak in. Period. I’m certain these are the same standards you apply to people knocking at your front door vs sneaking through a window in the dark. Do you seriously care about their motives or intentions if they’re breaking into a window? Or do you just write it off as someone “seeking greater opportunity”?

The problem is the binary logic applied to such “zero-tolerance” policy. Throughout law we recognize context and nuance. Speeding is against the law but we don’t charge those racing to the emergency room because of context. Heck, we often bend the law as society in those situations because we value helping those in need and crisis. In the example, its not uncommon for citizens to get a police escort in those moments.

Take your trespassing example. We know its illegal to trespass and damage another citizens property. Do you prosecute someone who only broke into a unoccupied house during an emergency to survive? I think that’s a better comparison. Its intellectually dishonest to compare immigrants crossing a border illegally to seek asylum to a Castle Doctrine scenario.

I give Hyde some credit here for extending his compassion and logic to an outgroup that doesn’t fit into his normal political ideology. If he keeps that up I’ll be duly impressed and rethink my criticisms.

No, no ,no. If you take your logic and apply it to immigrants crossing illegally than you have just opened up the border. Plus, how would you determine someone was escaping from harm vs. Someone wanting to harm us.

With bike’s logic we might as well send empty barges over to the worst parts of africa, fill them up with immigrants, and haul them on back to the US of A. I believe that bike should take some desperately poor immigrants into his own home and stop being such a hypocrite. I just flat-out admit I don’t want them around. Not a drop of hypocrisy on my end. I might’ve had more compassion at one time, but I’m just tired of it all. Bike can start filling up his house with them and try to save as many as possible in order to redeem himself from his(her?) hypocrisy.

bikeandfishJune 25, 2018 at 6:02 pm

Please show me where I am a hypocrite using my own words and ideas accurately, ie not some strawman like you just created.

bikeandfishJune 25, 2018 at 6:25 pm

And what is with your need to tangentially insert Africa into conversations in which has absolutely no bearing?

Our court systems, which Trump is recommending we abandon. We already have policy and procedure for this asylum issue we just are staffing it and funding it enough.

And no, my logic doesn’t equal “open borders”, that’s a false dichotomy you are hyperfocused on (talking points, campaign rhetoric). I support Immigration reform and policy. Plain and simple. I just have the education and compassion to recognize the difference between those seeking asylum and those causing actual harm. I believe in prosecuting them ina fundamentally different way.

I think you nailed it on the head. BikeandFish likes to remind himself how much he agree’s with himself and only wishes to post to clarify his greatness and superior thought process. If you challenge him you will be asked to present APA and MLA cited peer reviewed documentation that he himself failed to provide with any of his beautiful and eloquent ramblings. I am sure in his day to day life he charges around $130/hr on average for his professional services so those here should be grateful he casts his pearls amongst us swine FOR FREE!

IPFreelyJune 25, 2018 at 9:10 pm

Hahahaha… nailed it!

bikeandfishJune 25, 2018 at 9:21 pm

Ah, its another cute little troll. At least you are clever compared to John and IP. Thanks for putting in some effort.

I agree with much of what Hyde says here, though some of it is also specious.

Differentiating between people crossing a border for asylum and those causing harm is an important moral tool. We know the difference but it’s lost in politicking.

I also think highlighting how American interests have shaped global problems is paramount. We know we have played and egregious role in destabilizing much of the world but refuse to take that into account during inevitable humanitarian crisises that follow.

On the other hand, comparing the current immigration policy to the previous two administrations is problematic. Obama and Bush both prosecuted criminal aliens which resulted in family separation yet neither went after the average asylum seeker with those punitative tools like Trump. What we are seeing right now is an abuse of power and might at an entirely different scale.

That said, highlighting how Obama escalated distant drone wars and its role in devastating numerous international communities is fair and under-discussed. We know few Presidents are saints but this is one of Obama’s worst legacies. We have killed too many innocent world civilians with impunity and it does enter the equation about moral high ground.

Neither side has clean hands. But at the end of the day we still have to act. Individual behavior is key but so is pressuring the government to act humanely even when it means calling out your own side.

Forget self righteousness, who cares, as it is merely a symptom. Yea yea, a lot of it going around, especially media pundits, celebrities, and politicians of course. The point is how do we solve our immigration woes. The answer is obvious from looking at the problem. The problem is an open Southern Border has existed despite efforts of enforcement for eons. Close all loopholes, secure that border 99.9% and illegal immigration will literally cease. This will kill all motivation for parents in other countries to send their children on extremely dangerous journeys, if they know ahead of time illegal entry into the USA will fail. This will cut massive amounts of drug smuggling. This will destroy the coyote / human trafficking industry involved with the US southern border. This will also make immigration more fair, as those who go about it in a legal way will not be bypassed and marginalized by those who attempt to do so illegally. Also criminals and yes terrorists will not be able sneak into our country through this avenue. IS THIS NOT A WIN WIN for the greatest majority? Would this not make America safer, more fair, and secure? Why would you not want this outcome? SO THE ANSWER IS HOW DO YOU SECURE THE BORDER 99 9%? Take out the emotion, self righteousness, etc… and put on your thinking cap. Logic dictates the answer. Now on the other side of the equation, immigration reform has been a fleeting albatross for almost half a century. Add the fact Congress has failed, and partisanship is through the roof, inner-party, and between opposing parties. So what can be done? hmmm…. get a clue Sherlock. last post for awhile. Good Luck

But illegal immigration along the southern border has been at historic lows. 2017 was actually a 47 year low for arrests, in general, of illegal immigrants in the US. Even with increased enforcement apprehensions along the Southern Border are only 20% of numbers recorded back to the late 90s.

We don’t have an illegal immigration crisis on the southern border. That is a political fabrication. If we cared about illegal immigration then we would more effectively enforce those who enter the country through legal means and then overstay.

I blame the catholic church for much of the poverty in mexico, and central and south america–bunch of superstitious nonsense that encourages people to not practice birth control and breed themselves and their children into poverty. It’s a sad thing, but when they flow in here in droves they just turn the US into a place much like the places they leave. Most of us are simply tired of it. Even the ‘libruls’ I talk to are tired of it. Even this town has it’s little (or big?) enclaves full of illegals. And these enclaves always seem to be real dumpy, or they soon become that way–like: let’s see how many illegals we can cram into this 2 bedroom apartment. Do we save them by letting them all flood in, turning our neighborhoods dumpy in the process?

So according to your logic, Comm, the Mormon church then is the reason for Utahs poverty levels and breeding them and their children into poverty. Utah has a very high level of poverty and dumpy properties.

The LDS church definitely subtly promotes large families and whether you like it or not it is easier to make babies than make a successful business. Not helping is a fairly nice chunk of LDS men and women that get married for all the wrong reasons, make baby after baby only to look at each other one day wondering what they are doing together and the man takes off to leave the wife to beg week in and week out for bishops storehouse dogfood to feed to her family.

BF will have you know that he is well educated, went to law school, and reads the wall street journal daily along with Scientific American. He also donates to PBS and indulges in crossfit and vegan cooking. Please do not question him on ANYTHING! He is a true intellectual and we would only be so lucky to sit with him next to a fire and read a fine leathebound book with him… ohh pity us…

bikeandfishJune 25, 2018 at 9:09 pm

There must be an insult fresher than the dying carcass that is “living in your parents basement”. I think even you can do better than that.

IPFreelyJune 25, 2018 at 9:11 pm

Swing and a hit

commentsJune 25, 2018 at 10:45 pm

lol bike, i’d say asianspa has got your number

bikeandfishJune 25, 2018 at 11:58 pm

Not too concerned with your interpretation, Comment, considering you refuse to justify and support your bogus claims.

commentsJune 26, 2018 at 10:49 am

Wouldn’t it take all the fun out of it if I had to go “supporting my claims” 😉 . Plus, you wouldn’t want to end up as a “9/11 conspiracist” like me with all kinds of “supported claims”. hahaha 😉

bikeandfishJune 26, 2018 at 12:33 pm

Forgot you are 9/11 truther, comments. I’ve seen most of the claims but never any real evidence. Not too worried about getting stuck in that hole myself; I value facts too much, hence even agreeing with someone like Hyde every now and again.

commentsJune 26, 2018 at 7:01 pm

bike, i simply don’t value “debates” with you enough to put in the effort to hunt up “peer reviewed evidence” or whatever it is meets your standards. most here feel the same way 😉 . Plus, i prefer the label ‘9/11 conspiracist’ over ‘truther’. hahahah 😉

commentsJune 26, 2018 at 7:21 pm

oh, and bike, there is no evidence that the planes caused the buildings to collapse on 9/11. Go find me some evidence, otherwise you have no credibility on the issue 😉

bikeandfishJune 27, 2018 at 9:39 am

Oh man, I appreciate the laugh Comments. Too damn rich to go on a public forum and say “there is no evidence that the planes caused the buildings to collapse”. Nope, no “evidence” (ie, something that furnishes proof) other than countless hours of video showing two commercial airliners smashing into the towers and then the towers catching fire and collapsing. Yep, no evidence.

I’ve read the sites and no the hypothesises. But as I recently told John:

“You keep using that word (evidence). I do not think it means what you think it means.”

But thanks for the wingnut entertainment for the day. Gotta go start my Crisis Actor (TM) training and Government Coverup 101 class now.

commentsJune 27, 2018 at 10:45 am

Bike, you didn’t even know this area had a homeless shelter called switchpoint. You are oblivious to reality. Do you even live in this area or do you just troll around this site? There’s no credible evidence that airplanes caused the 3 skyscrapers to come down that day. The “conspiracy theories” make much more sense than the gov’t’s official version of how the structures actually collapsed. If you had actually ever looked into it you’d know that, but you have not. cheers buddy 😉

bikeandfishJune 27, 2018 at 12:02 pm

Freely admit I didn’t know about Switchpoint. Not sure how that relates to understanding we most definitely do have evidence “that the planes caused the buildings to collapse on 9/11”. As a truther you may believe the government covered up some conspiracy but y’all haven’t satisfied the burden of proof required of such outlandish claims. I mean you have had almost 20 years now.

I’ve spent time on those sites and listening to truthers despite my better judgement. Y’all are wackaloons just like Sandy Hook truthers.

commentsJune 27, 2018 at 2:19 pm

well, most of them ARE nutjobs. Hell, i might be one too, who knows 😉 . But no, there is no evidence, unless you consider the gov’t’s half-assed computer models to be evidence. I just consider them to be far-fetched speculation, no better than kookoo speculation cooked up by the nutters, because that’s all they are. I don’t give it much thought or reading into nowadays. But best not to pride yourself on being an ignoramus, bike. You didn’t even know there was a homeless shelter here… smh… can’t believe it…

bikeandfishJune 27, 2018 at 2:44 pm

I think you need to look up the definition of evidence. Videos are evidence.

PS….stgeorgenews.com = cedarcitynews.com. Everyone just assumed I’m from St George. Being unaware of a homeless shelter in a town I don’t live in doesn’t = ignoramous. But I do appreciate the hillarity that has always insued around trying, but failing, to put me down.

commentsJune 27, 2018 at 7:50 pm

Woah now, bike, calm yourself, aint nobody putting nobody down here. This particular site has prob done 10-12 articles on switchpoint in the last couple years. It’s just surprising you’ve not heard of it since you are very active on this site. The video evidence of the 9/11 destruction is what bothers me most bike–everything about the videos points to some sort of demolition by explosives or other controlled means–not a structure failure caused by heat and the damage by the planes. The video of WTC7 collapse looks like a textbook example of a controlled demo. The gov’t did a piss poor job at explaining the structural failure of wtc7. It actually took them years for what they did come up with, and what they released is so contrived and far-fetched that it’s ridiculous, almost like a bad joke. The videos of the twin towers look like controlled demo as well. Here, bike, I’ll humor you a bit here since i’m in the mood for it: the twin towers were built in such a way that, going from top to bottom, the lower levels had a much heavier built and reinforced structure, so a collapse from near the top of the building should’ve decelerated as it went into the much stronger lower levels. What we saw instead was a collapse that accelerated as it moved down. If you take the official story it actually violated the laws of physics. If you convince me otherwise I will give you a present, bike 😉

commentsJune 28, 2018 at 12:11 pm

No reply from the smartass windbag know-it-all, Mr Bike. I may be a “lunatic conspiracist” Mr Bike. But you aint got answers for everything do ya? hahahahah 😉 keep believing in fairytales. cheers buddy 😉

bikeandfishJune 28, 2018 at 12:53 pm

You are all over the place comments. One minute you say you aren’t insulting me and the next you unwind another set of unrelated names.

Here is the thing, conspiracies linger because folks like you are never satisfied with the official record. I, and most of the world, do believe the evidence and also know denying its accuracy requires more evidence than just the questions you highlight here. At the end of the day no amount of haggling is going to change that. And to be honest, after 15+ years its fair to no longer take truthers seriously. And I don’t.

You can believe whatever you want but the official record is the consensus on the issue, plain and simple. I’m not going to waste my time bickering over alleged details that ultimately neither us have the expertise to use as proof against the consensus opinion.

commentsJune 28, 2018 at 1:44 pm

well, if it didn’t still entertain me after all these years I guess i wouldn’t bring it up. But you are right in one respect, it really doesn’t matter. There’s the official record and it is what it is. I still hope you’ll begin to “harbor” some illegals in your spare rooms of your house. It’s the best way for you to redeem yourself from your own hypocrisy since you claim to care so much about them. And don’t be so delicate–if I was really trying to insult you you’d know it 😉

bikeandfishJune 28, 2018 at 2:42 pm

Its been a decade or more since any internet insults affected me.

I’m still laughing at the idea that the only way to be consistent with compassion to asylum seekers is to host them in your home. Too laughable. But I’m guessing half your point is to be ridiculous.

commentsJune 28, 2018 at 7:08 pm

Bike, you claim to have all this compassion for “asylum seekers”, but at the end of the day what do you do for them? You type in comments to stgnews– is this how you believe you’re supporting them? Put your money where your mouth is, bike, otherwise your just a ridiculous windbag 😉

This is all very simple actually. Entering this country legally is done through Port of entries. In between those ports of entries, it’s illegal to enter this country. Therefore, you do have people here that are illegal illegal immigrants or alien. They are not refugees of any kind.

When they entered illegally, prior to Trump’s Zero Tolerance policy, they were under Catch and Release, this was Obama’s choice so he wouldn’t have to detain and get the bad press for separating the families. President Obama never took up the issue of illegal immigration after that. This problem has been passed down since George W bush.

To clarify, our laws only enable two things for those who are here illegally. One is to detain. During Obama’s terms in 2014 they were detaining the increase flow of illegal immigrants. If people are detained for entering illegally, the parents and the children have to be separated. Children cannot be detained. That has been the case since court rulings after the little Cuban boy was found on a ship when his parents died while trying to get into the United States.

The catch and release program is the equivalent of open borders. They are just caught and not detained, but are given papers to return for court hearings and then let go. However, the United States became immersed with illegal aliens who were not showing up for the hearings. That’s when Trump did the zero tolerance. He didn’t create laws to hurt people or to hurt families.

In addition, Trump did not say that we didn’t need the courts of law for processing the illegals. Staff came to him and said they needed 5,000 new judges to go to the border to process the families that are detained. The staff that came to him couldn’t even tell him how many judges they currently had to process those entering illegally. It can take quite a while to process even one new judge. He told them to make do with what they had. I’m not sure how mainstream news is reporting that detail. All the vitriolic language is just causing more separation of our country. I would say that needs to stop. And, on both sides.

Soery, but Trump’s own words are inconsistent with your assumptions about his ideas of due process. In his own words, “When somebody comes in, we must immediately, with no Judges or Court Cases, bring them back from where they came.”. That is an unconstitutional idea and proposal. He deserves every bit of flack he is getting for it, especially considering this isn’t the first time he has verbally thrown a cornerstone of liberty out the window.

Ugh, its not a question of feelings. Its fact that they do have constitutional protections of due process. What you are describe meets every definition of fascism. Do you value fascism? I’m guessing you don’t. On the other hand you do seem willing to rationalize away anything this president does. As Americans we have choices in these moments. What side of history will you be on?

He says some stupid things on twitter for sure. It can be satirically humorous, outright belligerant, or nonsensical. I also think he sometimes tweets his wishes. I dislike most of Trump’s tweets and disagree with some of his ideas. However I respect the fact that he is the President. What I outlined before is what I heard him say on live television. He knows the laws. He is also frustrated by how slow government works.

I can understand the approach but you said “I’m not sure how mainstream news is reporting that detail. All the vitriolic language is just causing more separation of our country.”. I can even agree on issues of hyperpartisanship but they are reporting his own words in this case. And remember, he had actually tried implementing policy via Twitter.

I personally don’t question his role as president but provide “respect” when his behavior earns it, not just in response to the office. Granted, I’m also not likely to support uncivil behavior like intern yelling in Congress the other day.

“In 1876 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that immigration regulation was an exclusive Federal responsibility. Congress established the Immigration Service in 1891, which was the first time the Federal government took an active role. Congress enacted additional quota systems after World War I in the years 1921 and 1924. The laws remained largely unchanged until the passage of the “The Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1965.” Changes to admittance were made again in 1976 and 1978. “The Immigration Act of 1990″ added a category of admission based on diversity and increased the worldwide immigration ceiling.
~
In 1996, Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. This addressed border enforcement and the use of social programs by immigrants.
~
Non-citizens currently enter the United States lawfully in one of two ways, either by receiving either temporary (non-immigrant) admission or permanent (immigrant) admission.”

Here’s my humble opinion….American Compassion over the last 30 years has gave us 11 – 21 Million more Illegal Aliens on top of who was granted Amnesty during the Reagan Amnesty Act of 1986….so Nope, No More, We are done… build the Wall, really secure our Borders and End chain Migration…The Slient Majority is slient no more